Xahrx, you need to step away and calm a bit. Some folks here are very aggressive, don't let them pull you down with them. On that note consider the following statements again by LS.
xahrx: There are people out there who do not share your ideals and who would happily kill Americans simply because they are Americans.
Yet some of them are Americans. Murderers are murderers whether they live here or iraq. The label of 'terrorist' is arbitrary. We have evil men here just as there are evil men there.
xahrx:Just because you are an individualist doesn't change the reality that a lot of people in the world are not and don't make such fine distinctions when taking revenge for real and/or perceived wrongs done to them or people they identify with.
Being a nationalist doesn't mean that all murderers are foreigners and that foreigners are some how born murderers. I know I am mis-representing you, I am doing so to give you an example of how your mis-representing LS. If the middleeast has a higher rate of angry people right now there is a reason for that. Blowback is one example.
xahrx:By scaring him if possible, and killing him if necessary, and I don't give a shit by what moral authority. Neither will he or any other fanatic. Once more, if you want to have debates about how things work in a perfect world where everyone respects one another's property rights, have at it. In the real world there are people who would gladly gut you, often with no perceivable reason, while you pontificate on moral authority.
Be carful with your premise. Blood fueds, vendetta's, and the like are never justified, despite who started them. Should you get sucked into that trap you are just as evil as the man who started it. Consider the Montaques and Capulets.
As for me, I side with everyone else. Leaving the middle-east immediately would be of greatest benefit to us economically and morally. It would also be of greatest benefit to the Iraq's. But to be honest, I care not what they do after we are gone. It is not our responsibility or our business. Just as it is not my responsibility or my business to take any type of authority over my neighbor.
Juan:Nope, I'm not a lying troll. When immigration was discussed in the past you sided with the anti immigration 'libertarians'. Not that I paid much attention to your nonsense anyway.
No, I said immigration should be made easier so people who want to come here can do so without having to cross illegally with scum criminals. I also dared to suggest that in this less than perfect world totally open borders might not be workable, and that people who have objections to 'immigrants' coming across the border might not necessarily be anti 'immigrant' when their actual complain is the 'immigrant' in question was blasted on drugs, had a loud conversation with the family dog, and then pissed in the front doorway. i'm also a big, big fan of 'immigrants' with typhoid and other such sicknesses making salads for people. Come down to the local pen when my cousin works, we've got a bunch of them in there. Not to mention a bunch of 'immigrants' who apparently thought buggerring prepubescent girls was A-OK in the good old US of A.
The problem with the government and immigration is that they are concentrating on the wrong population, much as with the drug war. They target all drug users, the problem is people who harm others whether on drugs or not. Same with immigrants. So their policy is to oppose all immigration when legal immigration should be relatively easy so actual immigrants who want to come here and make a life for themselves can do so without jumping in a van with a 'coyote' and a bunch of scum criminal bastards. That is why legal immigration must be made much easier, so the population if illegal immigrants both shrinks and is much more homogenously criminal and worth concentrating law enforcement on.
But, I suspect such an argument is beyond your ability to comprehend. Ever hear that the perfect is the enemy of the good?
xahrx:Then provide the example I have asked for.
Easy on the logical fallacies. There are examples of stateless societies failing and examples of stateful societies failing. There are reasons and rational conclusions for why stateful ones have appeared to be predominant. That doesn't justify them, no more than it justified slavery before much of the world abandoned that.
There is nothing wrong with intelligent men questioning status quo, pointing out the errors, and presenting a way to improve.
Juan:Now, do you think you can explain why the iranian gov't can't have nukes while the american murderers can ?
I thought this was a good question for you xahrx.
filc:Xahrx, you need to step away and calm a bit. Some folks here are very aggressive
There is a difference between aggressive and stupid. The biggest problem I deal with in trying to get people to even consider freedom as an option is that they think Anarchists are a bunch of naive utopian dipshits who are more concerned with intellectual purity and perfect, flawless logic than anything that might actually make a real difference for the better in this world. It's big problem because they're not wrong. I'm all for calling bullshit on those who are hopeless statists, however more than a few people here need to learn that not everyone who disagrees with them wants to construct a pan opticon and enslave the human race to the state forever.
filc:Yet some of them are Americans. Murderers are murderers whether they live here or iraq. The label of 'terrorist' is arbitrary. We have evil men here just as there are evil men there.
Never said otherwise, so once more, the point?
filc:Being a nationalist doesn't mean that all murderers are foreigners and that foreigners are some how born murderers. I know I am mis-representing you, I am doing so to give you an example of how your mis-representing LS. If the middleeast has a higher rate of angry people right now there is a reason for that. Blowback is one example.
How have I misrepresented him? He wants a full and immediate pull out, I want a gradual one. For that I am labeled a statist and asked why I want to kill Iranian babies and rape Iranian women. Hyperbole? Certainly. Also on point. There will be blowback for an immediate pull out too, even assuming it's possible which for all practical purposes it isn't. So one can advocate for an ideal policy which will never happen and which itself takes place in this same less than ideal world and which itself will have unintended consequences, or one can advocate for gradually changing policy and drawing down troops, which yes will have its own problems and unintended consequences but also has the advantage of: one, being possible and at least a change in the right direction; and two, allowing for some possible mitigation of all the bad will our 'leaders' have built up over the years.
filc:Be carful with your premise. Blood fueds, vendetta's, and the like are never justified, despite who started them. Should you get sucked into that trap you are just as evil as the man who started it. Consider the Montaques and Capulets.
I disagree. And even if it does make me as evil as DinnerJacket, I'd be alive and he'd be dead, and I have no desire to nuke anyone. Once more, the perfect is not an available choice. So marginally speaking and on the absurd but for argument's sake workable premise, if it came down to it who would you want to deal with on a semi permanent basis, him or me?
filc:As for me, I side with everyone else. Leaving the middle-east immediately would be of greatest benefit to us economically and morally. It would also be of greatest benefit to the Iraq's. But to be honest, I care not what they do after we are gone. It is not our responsibility or our business. Just as it is not my responsibility or my business to take any type of authority over my neighbor.
I disagree. Or rather, I'm sure they would on your statement of responsibility for what's going on over there. And if we did pull out immediately and the region when to hell, nukes came into the equation and some dipshit melted New York into a glass sculpture specifically as revenge for first disarming his people, then leaving them to be massacred when we pulled out, what then? Once more, most people do not agree with anarchist ideals and they do apply personal analogies to international affairs. And in their minds we, meaning the US, broke into their, meaning the middle east, house and tore the place up. And you want to now leave with no reparations, no peace made, no attempt even at some kind of mending of wrongs done.
What exactly is wrong with, instead of an immediate pull out, saying to the middle east, "Sorry guys, our bad. Our troops are going to leave at a rate of X amount per X time period until at point Z we will be gone. You have until then to tell us what you want from us as payback for all the shit we pulled before we go, and while we won't be here killing you anymore, we also won't be here to stop you from killing each other should you decide to do that, so you also have until time Z to get a very big potato masher and a bowl to get your own shit together. We'll throw in a reconnection of the plumbing, electricity, and cable TV on us s a gesture of goodwill..." It is at least as possible as a full and immediate pull out, likely way more possible. It's not as ethically pure or satisfying morally, but it accomplishes roughly the same goal and maybe doesn't leave a complete hell in the wake of our leaving.
filc:Easy on the logical fallacies. There are examples of stateless societies failing and examples of stateful societies failing. There are reasons and rational conclusions for why stateful ones have appeared to be predominant. That doesn't justify them, no more than it justified slavery before much of the world abandoned that. There is nothing wrong with intelligent men questioning status quo, pointing out the errors, and presenting a way to improve.
There is a difference between questioning the status quo and incestuous gas baggery though. I see no example of a stateless society. Show it to me. And if it's so wonderful and still in operation, what are you still doing in a state society?
i would suggest Austrians take the Public Choice school to its logical conclusion and realize the state exits by and large because enough people demand such a mechanism in society. They want some level of institutionalized theft and murder, they seem to want a central authority be it God or the government. I don't know why. Maybe they have trouble seeing the difference between explicit and implicit cooperation. Maybe humans just have enough of a natural criminal tendency to make the existence of institutionalized force viable.
My personal view is that just as actual capital needs to accumulate to make advances possible in physical wealth, so does intellectual capital. People need to develop to anarchism and can't just make the jump anymore than stone age hunters can all of a sudden become first world service sector highly specialized workers. They will develop toward anarchism if given the chance because it is correct and right morally and ethically, but they will do so slowly, and especially slow when their any and every compromise away from the purest of anarchist ideas is met with derrision, insults, caricatures, and mocking. So do you want to actually accomplish something and perhaps enjoy some measure of real freedom at some point in your life, or does gassing around uselessly on message boards with the monolthically like minded truly satisfy you?
xahrx: Spideynw:And the problem with immediately withdrawing all the troops is? Immediate forgivness is not in the offerring from those we've pissed off, and pulling out and leaving Europe to deal with a problem that the US by and large created isn't going to make them all too friendly toward us either. Pulling the military presence out slowly, if nothing else, allows the people there time to adjust gradually.
Spideynw:And the problem with immediately withdrawing all the troops is?
Immediate forgivness is not in the offerring from those we've pissed off, and pulling out and leaving Europe to deal with a problem that the US by and large created isn't going to make them all too friendly toward us either. Pulling the military presence out slowly, if nothing else, allows the people there time to adjust gradually.
So, the reason is................fear. Lame.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
xahrx:Oh for Christ's sake, give it up. You know damn well who I am writing of. There are people out there who do not share your ideals and who would happily kill Americans simply because they are Americans. Just because you are an individualist doesn't change the reality that a lot of people in the world are not and don't make such fine distinctions when taking revenge for real and/or perceived wrongs done to them or people they identify with.
Conjecture. Fear-mongering.
re: Iceland
[footnotes are excellent, except Rothbard on strategy]
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
wilderness: Juan:Now, do you think you can explain why the iranian gov't can't have nukes while the american murderers can ?I thought this was a good question for you xahrx.
I have no problem with the government of Iran owning nuclear weapons, so long as DinnerJacket and his ilk aren't a part of that government. My problem is not with the Iranians, it is with the nut jobs within their government who seem to want to be able to melt cities for some reason. And no, I do not think I have the ultimate moral authority to make that decision, but I'm going to try and do so anyway because I think DinnerJacket and his ilk believe they do have that authority and will exercise it. And yes, I worry about our own government's past and possible future use of such weapons as well. However I consider a nuking by Obama here or abroad less likely than a nuking by DinnerJacket and/or any nutter he may decide to 'sponsor' with a present of a small, tactical nuke which will likely go off in my backyard considering they seem to love to target NY. I've seen enough people die here to last me a life time, and I'm not willing to see another couple thousand dead neighbors of mine simply to satisfy my desire for ideological purity. And no, I do not get the moral authority to kill others by witnessing death myself. I just get the practical frame of reference of what I can and can not live with, and the desire and the balls to stand up and stop it.
E. R. Olovetto: re: Iceland
Wow, a stateless society with a state apparatus...
I didn't ask about minarchism, I asked about anarchism. There is a difference between a small, noninterventionist government and no government.
xahrx: liberty student:So the US, who has wantonly killed people with nukes, and has probably killed more non-combatants than any other nation in the last 2 decades, is the safe choice? There is no safe choice. There is a least shitty choice.
liberty student:So the US, who has wantonly killed people with nukes, and has probably killed more non-combatants than any other nation in the last 2 decades, is the safe choice?
There is no safe choice. There is a least shitty choice.
But who are you to make that choice for millions or even billions of people?
xahrx: liberty student:Sure it is, because that is the standard you judge your enemies by. Not quite, but once more if it bloats your goat, go with it.
liberty student:Sure it is, because that is the standard you judge your enemies by.
Not quite, but once more if it bloats your goat, go with it.
So what standard do you use to judge your enemies by, if not by the past?
xahrx:Ever hear that the perfect is the enemy of the good?
Are you using that to justify pursuing and supporting the bad?
Spideynw:So, the reason is................fear. Lame.
Own a gun? What do you fear?
There is a difference between fear and common sense self defense, between trying to come to a workable peace and simply turning your back on a possibly dangerous enemy and walking away, giving him the opportunity to stick a knife in your back. Idealism is only maintainable relative to what you have to lose. I suppose being very idealistic, you have little to lose. I have friends and a family and a life I'd like to see continue uninterrupted. Under normal circumstances I see the the US government as the biggest problem in that regard. With regard to the middle east I see fanatical dipshits in pajamas who want nuclear weapons as the biggest problem, and the US government as my less than perfect, unlikely ally of the moment.
xahrx: E. R. Olovetto: re: Iceland Wow, a stateless society with a state apparatus... I didn't ask about minarchism, I asked about anarchism. There is a difference between a small, noninterventionist government and no government.
Where is the minarchism? This system isn't exactly what we advocate anyhow. In the thread about Xeer law, someone objected that the family/clan component was necessary, but this can be easily reproduced by for-profit companies.
liberty student:But who are you to make that choice for millions or even billions of people?
No one in particular. Who are you to make them choose complete inaction? I make no pretentions to ideological purity, asking me to is therefore pointless. I submit here and now to the judgement of murderer for killing DinnerJacket if that's what it comes to and I advocate that action. I will be a murderer. Given the possible alternatives, I'm cool with that. I have accepted that my role in this world will not always be perfect by the standards to which I wish everyone would adhere. And I'm well aware that the governments of the world are full of people who think the same thing and use the same reasoning. I just hope that knowing what the my ideal is, which is anarchism, and how unattainable it is, I can limit my compromises to those which will result in a net good for the world in general. That's the price you pay for living in the world as opposed to lobbing criticisms at it from a hermetically sealed ideological bubble.
liberty student:So what standard do you use to judge your enemies by, if not by the past?
By what they say they want to do and seem to be working toward doing, such as nuking Israel, getting rid of the great satan the US, and enriching uranium to weapons grade levels. Now I couldn't care less about Israel, but since the US seems to be linked with Israel in the minds of fanatics because of our ill advised support for Israel over the years, I do at least have to consider them in the equation. Personally I'd rather move Israel to somewhere within Utah and be done with it, but I don't think the Israelis would go for that.
xahrx:The biggest problem I deal with in trying to get people to even consider freedom as an option is that they think Anarchists are a bunch of naive utopian dipshits who are more concerned with intellectual purity and perfect, flawless logic than anything that might actually make a real difference for the better in this world.
I think the biggest problem you have is communicating logically, coherently, consistently, without ad hominem. As to what people think anarchists are, most people don't even know what ancaps are or that such ideas even exist. And as a matter of individualism, anyone who rejects freedom because it is "utopian" or someone else has "utopian ideas" is making a fallacious argument.
So it seems to me, you have trouble communicating, when dealing with people who work from falsehoods. My ideological purity has nothing to do with your inability to make headway in these scenarios.
As far as making a "real difference for better in this world", what is better is subjective, and so the responsibility does not fall on you to determine what is and is not better for this work, nor for you to implement any universal notion of such. The only issue I can see you having with anarchists, is that we won't go vote with you assuming you are a democrat. If there is some other positive obligation you want to hang around our necks, then you're not even a minarchist libertarian. What next, we all have to pay our fair share so we can have more nukes and air craft carriers than the rest of the world combined?
xahrx:It's big problem because they're not wrong.
They are wrong, and they operate from false premises. It is somewhat unsurprising, but still disturbing that you think that their false premises are an indictment of people with good ideas and conviction.
xahrx:And even if it does make me as evil as DinnerJacket, I'd be alive and he'd be dead, and I have no desire to nuke anyone.
We need to get to the bottom of this fallacy. He has no nukes. The IAEA says he is not producing nukes. The entire world is watching him, to make sure he doesn't make nukes. If he tries to make nukes, Israel will attack him. Even Ron Paul doesn't believe he's a nuclear threat. So what do you know, that the weapons inspectors, Israel etc do not?
Also, where is he evil. By this I mean, how is he more evil than any other statist? What precisely has he done that is so evil? Why is he such a great threat?
xahrx:And you want to now leave with no reparations, no peace made, no attempt even at some kind of mending of wrongs done.
The US will never leave, never make reparations, and never allow peace in the middle east. To do so, would mean dropping support for Israel, leaving them to establish diplomatic relationships with their neighbors, instead of being militant antagonists.
xahrx:It's not as ethically pure or satisfying morally, but it accomplishes roughly the same goal and maybe doesn't leave a complete hell in the wake of our leaving.
Have you considered for a minute, that the people being tortured in Iraqi prisons, and bombed in Pakistan, probably don't want you to take your sweet ass time leaving? That they wish you had never stayed one more second in their country, causing pain and destruction, supporting corrupt governments?
You make a dualistic argument here. First you argue your own fear and paranoia, then you argue that these people wouldn't be better off if US troops left immediately. Neither argument is based on reason. It's entirely based on emotion, like your premise that we should just make compromises now, because that is how progress is made.
Ron Paul doesn't buy that, Murray Rothbard had little to show for that, and the size and scope of the state is a clear indication that the libertarian compromisers have done little or nothing, and perhaps even exacerbated the growth of leviathan, rather than rein it in.
The only way the system can reform is if the people will change. You can't change government, you have to change the will of the people.
E. R. Olovetto:Where is the minarchism? This system isn't exactly what we advocate anyhow. In the thread about Xeer law, someone objected that the family/clan component was necessary, but this can be easily reproduced by for-profit companies.
The minarchism is in the fact that, whether you like it or not, Iceland is now and always has been under the control of some form of government. Limited and close to anarcho clannism at times perhaps, government none the less. I asked for a stateless society. What you have shown is working examples of what I advocate; an extreme limiting of government to what most people think are its bare 'essential' functions with functioning private alternatives. You get there by convincing enough people that it's what's right, not by espousing some unachievable anarcho capitalist ideal, unless it is framed as just that; an ideal to aspire to, if never to reach.
xahrx:Who are you to make them choose complete inaction?
There is no such thing as inaction. Praxeology 101.
xahrx:I submit here and now to the judgement of murderer for killing DinnerJacket if that's what it comes to and I advocate that action.
Ok, fair enough, you're a statist. So why are you here?
xahrx:By what they say they want to do and seem to be working toward doing
But that is the past, and you said that was irrelevant when applied to the US. How is that logically consistent?
xahrx:such as nuking Israel
Source?
xahrx:getting rid of the great satan the US
Khomeini tried that, and nobody cared. The Iranians can't radicalize themselves, it is people like you, who support their government making threats, that radicalize these people. This is that eye for an eye thing I was talking about. You can't even see, that by saying you would kill a man, you are setting the stage for future violence. That the sanctions the US is putting on Iran, is going to drive Iranians to radicalize against America. Every intervention causes the next crisis (paraphrasing Mises). You think you're making yourself more safe through intervention, by threatening murder, by refusing to go home, but all you are doing is exacerbating the crisis. It's like a drug addict, that can't stop getting high, until they die from an overdose.
xahrx:and enriching uranium to weapons grade levels.
Source? Last I read, the UN Weapons inspectors maintain there is no proof they are trying to establish a weapons program. What proof do you have?
xahrx:Personally I'd rather move Israel to somewhere within Utah and be done with it, but I don't think the Israelis would go for that.
Not that you care about all of the Utes you would displace right? Because the end justifies the means?
xahrx: E. R. Olovetto:Where is the minarchism? This system isn't exactly what we advocate anyhow. In the thread about Xeer law, someone objected that the family/clan component was necessary, but this can be easily reproduced by for-profit companies. The minarchism is in the fact that, whether you like it or not, Iceland is now and always has been under the control of some form of government. Limited and close to anarcho clannism at times perhaps, government none the less. I asked for a stateless society. What you have shown is working examples of what I advocate; an extreme limiting of government to what most people think are its bare 'essential' functions with functioning private alternatives. You get there by convincing enough people that it's what's right, not by espousing some unachievable anarcho capitalist ideal, unless it is framed as just that; an ideal to aspire to, if never to reach.
You still didn't answer the question. I can't tell that you even read the article before deciding to reply.
I gotta go back to work, spent too much time on here today, but I have to leave with this thought.
xahrx, you don't have better proof (I assume) than the UN weapons inspectors, the international atomic energy agency or the NSA. But you've already claimed that you would be willing to pre-emptively kill a man, for a threat, that as far as I can see, is completely unsubstantiated.
The reason why you would kill him, is because you feel he is a threat, and yet by taking such a stance, you become a threat to the Iranians. Who again, no one has any proof that they have a nuclear weapons program.
Think about how crazy that is for a minute. You would pre-emptively kill, without proof, to prevent being attacked, by a threat you can't substantiate.
That is George Bush, ignoring the Weapons Inspectors, and going into Iraq, and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens if we assume he really believed there was a threat, and I think he has been shown to be disingenuous in that regard.
So really think about that. Are the Iranians a threat to you? Because you have just announced you are a threat to them. And so, we can expect escalation, back and forth, until thousands more people die, and untold amounts of property are destroyed as weapons and rubble, lowering the standard of civilization.
This is the insanity of mutually assured destruction. A self-fulfilling prophecy.
This is far worse than some people having utopian ideals. This is the real counter-force against liberty. The willingness to kill or use violence without just cause.
xahrx:There is a difference between aggressive and stupid.
Calling them stupid and name calling people as "assbageryous" would provoke them would it not? It's sad because it is only your opinion that is in conflict with their logic.
xahrx:How have I misrepresented him?
You made an argument that LS believes there are no vengeful people in the world. In doing so I think you missed his point.
xahrx:Never said otherwise, so once more, the point?
I may be wrong. You seem to insenuate alot with "Us" and "Them". Such is the language of a nationalist and is misleading or hard to follow. If it's not an "us" "them" issue I'd recommend employing different language. Though to me it still sounds like your stuck on "us"/ "them" dichotomy. There are more dangerous people in the world, some of which have access to nukes. Not necessarily Americans. Our occupation over there is entirely arbitrary. Who will we go for next after Iran? Seems kind of unfair to isolate them out when several other countries are developing their own nuclear programs as well, or already have them.
I understand why you are afraid of certain individuals over there. What seems illogical to me is that there are probably 100 more of those types of people in the world, some of which have greater accessibility to nukes than iranians do.
filc:Blood fueds, vendetta's, and the like are never justified, despite who started them.
xahrx:I disagree. And even if it does make me as evil as DinnerJacket,
At least your honest. I'd prefer not to have my tax dollars pay for someone else's blood feud though. I think you'd agree to that.
filc:As for me, I side with everyone else. Leaving the middle-east immediately would be of greatest benefit to us economically and morally.
xahrx:I disagree.
xahrx:And if we did pull out immediately and the region when to hell, nukes came into the equation and some dipshit melted New York into a glass sculpture specifically as revenge for first disarming his people, then leaving them to be massacred when we pulled out, what then?
I'd prefer to keep fairy tales out of this. If we're going to go into what-ifs let me lay this one on you. The odds of you dieing tomorrow in your commute to work is extremely high by comparison. Perhaps you should employ that logic and start lobbying for a safer road system?
xahrx:And in their minds we, meaning the US, broke into their, meaning the middle east, house and tore the place up. And you want to now leave with no reparations, no peace made, no attempt even at some kind of mending of wrongs done.
Yes I do.
Lets be clear here. It's folly to argue that it's not more efficient to leave the middle east at once in one fell swoop. It's more effecient economically, it's more effecient logisticly, and it's more efficient in loss of life. There is only one reason why it is not 'practical'. But for all intense purposes, from a pragmatic standpoitn leaving would be easy. The only problem is it's not politically feasible. Primarily because people still hold true to the ideology you espouse. It is entirely more efficient in all ways accept politically to leave now.
xahrx:What exactly is wrong with, instead of an immediate pull out, saying to the middle east, "Sorry guys, our bad.
Every day we are there we are effectively
Everday we stay there is a day we are violating their sovereignty and property. Everyday we are there we squelcnh more capital and taxpayer dollars. Every day we are there more american's die. How many more american's need to die? How many more american's have died passed the deathcount of 9/11?
I see lots wrong with it.
xahrx:For that I am labeled a statist and asked why I want to kill Iranian babies and rape Iranian women.
I don't think your called a statist because you want a slow departer. Most disagree with you but people are calling you a statist because you are using alot of nationalist rhetoric to defend your case. It's not the ultimate point your trying to make, it's the details you used to come to that conclusion that people are attacking, and they most certainly are statist. For example....
xahrx:i would suggest Austrians take the Public Choice school to its logical conclusion and realize the state exits by and large because enough people demand such a mechanism in society.
Making such statements, especially on these forums, is an inventation to harsh criticism.
And on that note I'd like to add. It's easy to come to the conclusion you just made when that "demand" is being forced apon you. If people truely wanted institutionalized services they would develop them so without the use of coersion.
On another note you seem to make many posts that fall off topic. Try making your responses not so long winded and stay OT. I don't want to get into an argument on immigration or public schools.
xahrx:No one in particular. Who are you to make them choose complete inaction?
he's not arguing "forced" inaction or action. You seem to be confused on what he said. He's arguing the removal of compulsion. I don't know if you don't understand what he is saying or if your deliberately trying to construct a strawman. I mean no offense.
xahrx:hat you have shown is working examples of what I advocate; an extreme limiting of government to what most people think are its bare 'essential' functions with functioning private alternatives.
But if people wanted these services why would they need to employ compulsion to get them? Your hypothesis is inconsistent.
xahrx: I asked for a stateless society.
E.R. Olovetto why give into his logical fallacy and fuel his fire? He is arguing from ignorance.
xahrx: Spideynw:So, the reason is................fear. Lame. Own a gun? What do you fear?
You are the one that is afraid, not I. I have no qualms about the troops being recalled immediately.
xahrx:There is a difference between fear and common sense self defense,
Correct. Fear requires a government to station troops all around the world, and then to bring them home slowly. Self defense just requires allowing people to own guns.
xahrx:between trying to come to a workable peace and simply turning your back on a possibly dangerous enemy and walking away,
Bringing the troops home immediately is a workable peace.
xahrx:giving him the opportunity to stick a knife in your back.
More fear-mongering. Stop being so scared.
xahrx:I have friends and a family and a life I'd like to see continue uninterrupted.
More fear-mongering. Stop being scared.
xahrx:With regard to the middle east I see fanatical dipshits in pajamas who want nuclear weapons as the biggest problem,
Fear, fear, fear.
xahrx: wilderness: Juan:Now, do you think you can explain why the iranian gov't can't have nukes while the american murderers can ?I thought this was a good question for you xahrx. ...nuking by Obama here or abroad less likely...
...nuking by Obama here or abroad less likely...
This was the only part I thought that actually touched upon the question. Obama is only in power for four to eight years.
1 - Are you concerned about nuclear weapons in general?
and/or
2 - Are you only concerned about nuclear weapons in the hands of somebody you assume might use them?
3 - The significant point is Obama is only in office most likely for a limited term. So here's a government that could vote in anybody into office, ie. as hitler was voted in keep that in mind, and you only had eight words to comment upon the u.s. government and nukes. Yet you go on and on about Iran. I'm beginning to assume some things about you so please answer these questions and comment on this.
Well I got to the party late...
Does Iran have the right to nukes? I would have to answer that with a couple questions of my own. Does anyone have the right to be able to destroy the whole world? How do we decide who has more right to nukes than someone else? Because the US has nukes does that give us the god given right to decide for the rest of humanity what is right? (god given right/nuke given right... whatever)
Spideynw you made a lot of good points with your post of facts. I just may have to keep that somewhere and use it to make me look good (I wouldn't really do that dude).
If I were in Iran's position I would certainly get some nukes. To protect myself from the US if nothing else. (like spideynw said no country with nukes gets invaded) The US has made most of our enemies through our own fears. The US has become the schoolyard bully. People may fear the bully but no one likes them. If everyone teamed up and stood up to the bully then the bully goes down quick. Even those that pretend to be friends with the bully will turn on him.
So yes Iran has as much right as anyone else to nukes.
I'm pretty new here and read a lot more than I post so I want to just reply to the tone of the thread in general. Since the thread has kind of gone away from the original question just a bit...
"The biggest problem I deal with in trying to get people to even consider freedom as an option is that they think Anarchists are a bunch of naive utopian dipshits who are more concerned with intellectual purity and perfect, flawless logic than anything that might actually make a real difference for the better in this world." [sic]
I see what you are saying and in a pragmatic way you are right. But pragmatism doesn't always work. There is a problem in a lot of issues with trying to go in little steps. Using the current health care crap as an example: What we have right now is screwed up. We have either too many regulations, or not enough, depending on your viewpoint. If we take some of the crippling regulations off the insurance companies the free market should work the problems out. If we go to an all gov't run system they might be able to get it running ok. But by all the compromising over the years we simply have a huge mess. Neither side is really happy with it, and the consumers, insurance companies, and health care professions are not being served as well as they could.
Perhaps a more 'real world' approach to politics and economics would be to make some sweeping changes and get it done. The long, painful, compromising way doesn't seem very effective so far. If that makes them look like pie in the sky idealist, well maybe they are. But I like their views a lot better than anything we've ever had.
Too bad I am such a hypocrite. I'm one big comprising SOB! But then again I never really get anything accomplished either.
A cult is a religion with no political power. - Tom Wolfe
Life without music would be an error. - Nietzsche
We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. - Edward R. Morrow
While I hate the idea, concept and fundamental purpose (mass destruction) of nuclear weapons, I think while they exist, and others are in possession of them, then everyone should have a right to possess them--but I also believe no one has a right to use them aggressively. I think the idea that a nation who does possess many nuclear weapons, being the only nation in history to have aggressively employed them... twice, has no right whatsoever to tell another country they cannot build them. I think their fundamental purpose (mass destruction) is not currently their primary purpose, as I think their primary purpose as of now is for protection, defense and posturing. Admittedly this is always subject to change, however I think so long as there are multiple countries or peoples in possession of nuclear weapons, the less likely they are to be employed aggressively. This is similar to the topic of gun control, in a sense. If gun control were less strict, more people may very well be in possession of guns--but that does not necessarily mean more murders or violent crimes would occur, and in fact an argument can be made to the contrary as I understand it.
My 2 cents, for what it's worth.
filc: xahrx:hat you have shown is working examples of what I advocate; an extreme limiting of government to what most people think are its bare 'essential' functions with functioning private alternatives. But if people wanted these services why would they need to employ compulsion to get them? Your hypothesis is inconsistent.
Actually we have had some interesting discussions at work along these lines. A lot of the guys at work say they trust themselves enough for self government but it's all the others you can't trust, so you need a government. So... you don't trust individuals... but you think a group of individuals you don't trust would somehow elect a group you do trust... fear is a wonderful thing isn't it?
granrojo: liberty student: granrojo:Fair enough. I shouldn't generalise, but some certainly do because I've been having debates on it. Name names please. Well that wouldn't be nice would it? However, you will see that I am new around here so it shouldn't be too hard to look over my previous posts. That said, I'd rather stick to the current debate rather than start picking at everyone else's views. I should probably retract my statement about "many people on this forum believe", it's not really my place to say what somebody else believes.
liberty student: granrojo:Fair enough. I shouldn't generalise, but some certainly do because I've been having debates on it. Name names please.
granrojo:Fair enough. I shouldn't generalise, but some certainly do because I've been having debates on it.
Name names please.
Well that wouldn't be nice would it?
However, you will see that I am new around here so it shouldn't be too hard to look over my previous posts.
That said, I'd rather stick to the current debate rather than start picking at everyone else's views. I should probably retract my statement about "many people on this forum believe", it's not really my place to say what somebody else believes.
At the risk of being late to the party, Liberty made an important gesture by asking for examples. The position you described is definately a minority opinion on this board, so if you believe it be common it could be that you are misunderstanding the positions of others on board. Liberty is striving for clarity, not nickpicking.
To say that a property right includes that right to do harm to others with that property is to ignore the entire point of property rights, which is to prevent harm.
While in the political mainstream you will find many instances of people saying that certain rights trump other rights, here you will find the community strives to recognize only rights that are universally compatible. That is, negative rights; the right to be left alone.
The conscientious here is any use of property which does not leave others alone is illicit, while any use of property which does leave others alone is acceptable; what is called the Non-Aggression principle. Where we run into disagreement is on what actions do or do not constitute aggression.
I happen to be of the opinion that owning nukes does not constitute aggresion, no more so than owning any bomb/weapon/potential weapon/natural weapon. I, however, am in favor of disarming all governments of all weapons, starting with our government, of course.
Peace
Marko:Carved up by whom? Why don`t you compare the navies.
I'm talking about a Zimbabwe-esque economic crisis.
The U.S. Navy takes the most in terms of economic resources to operate and maintain.
Depending on the economic and military positions of each nation, hard to say exactly which nations would be in competition for U.S. resources. In addition, if things get bad enough the carve-up may not even come militarily. I can see the potential for the Federal Government to sell off territories - whether that's constitutional or not hasn't really stopped them so far. But one thing is for certain, the United States' ability to project power would be nearly impossible in this scenario, which would open up the opportunity for annexation around the world.
xahrx: K.C. Farmer:An ideology that is maleable doesn't lead to popularity, it leads to destruction. If we could bring about change in incremental steps without changing the principles, believe me this would have been done by now. It has been done, in the wrong direction. If they can do it, why can't we? It is the concentration on mass change that is the issue. For a group of people whose world view is heavily influenced by economics, I find it hard to fathom that Austrian/Anarcho Capitalists would insist on the rest of the world's people making categorical ideological changes rather than marginal ones. K.C. Farmer:We don't help the cause of freedom by enslaving ourselves, and we don't serve any purpose in becoming martyrs for a cause that the people aren't ready for. I'm not suggesting either. I'm saying that, as when you make buying decisions, you take each issue as it comes and make the trade offs necessary without sacrificing the overall direction you're pushing in. I think we can make gains toward freedom and a minimal state, and need to evaluate the practical implications of each decision as it comes to us. Ideologically pure nonsense seems to me as ridiculous as Climate 'Scientists' claiming CO2 causes warming in the Earth's complex open ended climate system just because it does so in a controlled lab. Real life is more complex than that, their refusal to acknowledge that is very much like the refusal of people here to acknowledge that the real world deviates from their ideal, and should be perhaps dealt with on its own terms from time to time if you really want to make a difference.
K.C. Farmer:An ideology that is maleable doesn't lead to popularity, it leads to destruction. If we could bring about change in incremental steps without changing the principles, believe me this would have been done by now.
It has been done, in the wrong direction. If they can do it, why can't we? It is the concentration on mass change that is the issue. For a group of people whose world view is heavily influenced by economics, I find it hard to fathom that Austrian/Anarcho Capitalists would insist on the rest of the world's people making categorical ideological changes rather than marginal ones.
K.C. Farmer:We don't help the cause of freedom by enslaving ourselves, and we don't serve any purpose in becoming martyrs for a cause that the people aren't ready for.
I'm not suggesting either. I'm saying that, as when you make buying decisions, you take each issue as it comes and make the trade offs necessary without sacrificing the overall direction you're pushing in. I think we can make gains toward freedom and a minimal state, and need to evaluate the practical implications of each decision as it comes to us. Ideologically pure nonsense seems to me as ridiculous as Climate 'Scientists' claiming CO2 causes warming in the Earth's complex open ended climate system just because it does so in a controlled lab. Real life is more complex than that, their refusal to acknowledge that is very much like the refusal of people here to acknowledge that the real world deviates from their ideal, and should be perhaps dealt with on its own terms from time to time if you really want to make a difference.
You either follow logic and reasoning or you do not. Once you leave the discipline of reason, which both the Left and Right in this country (the U.S.) do all the time, it's very hard to recover. Making libertarianism so that it's more attractive for Republicans or Democrats doesn't help even if you obtain a little ground. And if you're an Anarcho-Capitalist, you've essentially abandoned not only your economic principles, but reason itself. A little death is death nonetheless.
To be an obedient servant of the truth in a world of lies has more honor in it than to be the king of the world.
K.C. Farmer: But one thing is for certain, the United States' ability to project power would be nearly impossible in this scenario, which would open up the opportunity for annexation around the world.
But one thing is for certain, the United States' ability to project power would be nearly impossible in this scenario, which would open up the opportunity for annexation around the world.
To defend yourself you don`t need the ability to project power. You need the ability to defend yourself.
Marko:To defend yourself you don`t need the ability to project power. You need the ability to defend yourself.
Not saying that you do. This relates to an earlier post in this thread on what the U.S. Military is used for.
The inability for the U.S. to project power wouldn't necessarily deter U.S. defense (although I'm not even sure the military is even structured for defense), but it may make the defense of other nations either very difficult or even impossible. On the flip side, it would also make the bullying aspects of the U.S. Government either very difficult or even impossible.
I would most definitely prefer that other nations provide for their own defense. If they want to hire the U.S. Military as a PDA, and all aspects of that were voluntary, then that might be O.K. But then that suggests that the U.S. Government doesn't really need to be involved even in defense of the U.S.; privatization would cover it and you wouldn't have this proclivity to grand expeditions into warfare.
liberty student:You can't change government, you have to change the will of the people.
Could you elaborate on this LS? I'm not quite sure what you mean by change the will of the people, or why changing that will is necessary for Ancap to exist?
Pablo:Could you elaborate on this LS? I'm not quite sure what you mean by change the will of the people, or why changing that will is necessary for Ancap to exist?
It was poorly written. My point is, you can't change the government, to make the people better, or make the people ancaps. If you took away the government today, there would be one tomorrow. People want government. People want a military. They like being able to vote on the redistribution of their neighbor's property. They worship their politicians. Even if they get short changed, they believe government is better than no government.
The only way to change that paradigm, is to prove to them, convince them, market to them, lead them, to the conclusion that government is not in their best interest, ,and then things will change.
Do I have a right to change people? I can argue and debate with them, but ultimately the change lies with them.
Can ancap exist in a world where 99.9% of the population accepts not just the premise of the state, but that not having the state is immoral and unfair? I don't think so. In order for ancap to exist, we must have property. And we can't have property, if we have no means to defend it. And we can't defend property in the face of overwhelming force. However, if there was sympathy for ancaps, if there was sympathy for freedom, then there is a chance that the statists would not have the degree of consent they do, to attack anyone acting freely. A good example, is the difference between the Swiss and American people. Their governments are very different in tone and design, and those reflect the values of the people.
liberty student:Can ancap exist in a world where 99.9% of the population accepts not just the premise of the state, but that not having the state is immoral and unfair? I don't think so.
So how many do you think is needed?
Spideynw:So how many do you think is needed?
I don't know. Much more than we have now. Maybe by a factor of 100,000 (globally) assuming there are 10,000 sincere ancaps.
I am of course, talking about a peaceful evolution.
The alternative, is that this particular discussion will become relevant when people are able to carry pocket nukes or nano-weapons instead of pepper spray (Diamond Age), and then it will be very hard to enforce monopoly law when each person is sovereign by virtue of their capacity for self-defense. But that is a little too Gene Roddenberry for me and well outside the scope of my lifetime (as this entire endeavour may be).
liberty student:There is no such thing as inaction. Praxeology 101.
There is such a thing as common meaning, more useful than jargon. Common Sense 101.
liberty student:Ok, fair enough, you're a statist. So why are you here?
Yup. I'm a statist who thinks the ideal world would have no state, and who is for a reduction of state power and a draw down of state troops, a removal of state regulations, etc., etc., etc., etc.
liberty student:But that is the past, and you said that was irrelevant when applied to the US. How is that logically consistent?
Because I have already said that: one, I disagree with current and past US policy; two, I want to change current US policy; and three, what worries me is possible current and/or future Iranian policy.
liberty student: Khomeini tried that, and nobody cared. The Iranians can't radicalize themselves, it is people like you, who support their government making threats, that radicalize these people.
What radicalizes 'these people' is our troops in their land and our policies, our constant imposition of western will on their sovereignty. I say that should end. I also say that since for the foreseeable future we are going to have a state, and so is Iran, we should change our state's policy to one that does not piss off the native population and which does not target that same population when, if there is a problem and a likely threat to the US, it will be at the state power level.
liberty student:This is that eye for an eye thing I was talking about. You can't even see, that by saying you would kill a man, you are setting the stage for future violence.
Sure I can. I just don't care because unlike you I do not live in a nonviolent utopia where my adherence to peace makes others throw down their weapons in shame and take up basket weaving. Violence is a fact of life, and it will be so long as humans exist I woudl wager. I want it minimized. If I thought there were a chance in hell of getting rid of it I'd gladly take the high road. But I don't, so I don't. I have no problem compromising my ideals to come up with practical solutions to problems which: one, might actually sell to people in this world who don't share my ideals; two, at least move us closer to those ideals rather than further away. Now here in the real world, state leaders can be a threat to citizens of the US. Rather than the US using its military to bomb the citizens of another country into desperate radicalism, I suggest keeping our troops at bay and, if ever there is a threat, focussing on the individual(s) who truly comprise the threat. DinnerJacket being one of the likely ones in this case.
In your world there is no color, there is black and white. That's not the real world. If everyone not as perfectly pure as you is a 'statist', you may as well give up. Oh, and I'm sure you have a private service fly your food in to you so you don't have to use state roads, and all you consume is certified free of subsidization, and that if your home were burning down you wouldn't call that horrible state run fire department, or if you were being robbed that horrible police force... And no, I am not saying those functions are necessarily government functions or that it is proper for the government to provide them. I think everything from security to fire fighting to road building can and should be handled privately. Unless however you are truly living your life without compromise, then you're just as much a 'statist' as I am for using those roads, those fireman, the police, the internet, etc., etc., etc., etc. Unless of course there's some reason why your personal judgement of the appropriate level of compromise that you deemed necessary to live comfortably in this world while still pursuing your ideals is somehow superior to mine for some reason you would like to explain.
If you look far enough into the past and deep enough into the structure of production of anything you, I or anyone else has made use of in this world, you'll find a government sponsored murder or few. Does that make us all hypocrits and 'statists', or are we allowed to live in this world to some degree while fighting for the ideal of a stateless, voluntary society?
liberty student:That the sanctions the US is putting on Iran, is going to drive Iranians to radicalize against America.
That's nice. I don't support the sanctions, so once more your point is? Perhaps I'd be less apt to resort to ad hominems if you would stop emmulating a pack of morons and begging the question of my 'statist' status by throwing the sins of the entire history of US policy on my back? It's just something to consider.
liberty student:Every intervention causes the next crisis (paraphrasing Mises). You think you're making yourself more safe through intervention, by threatening murder, by refusing to go home,...
Once more, I have said that our troops should come home. I have just said they should not do so immediately, all at once, right now. I think a phased pull out is less likely to stir up anti US sentiment than an immediate one and as such is better for every US citizen and for everyone in the middle east overall.
liberty student:Source? Last I read, the UN Weapons inspectors maintain there is no proof they are trying to establish a weapons program. What proof do you have?
Nothing so presitgious, so reliable, so wonderful as... the UN. Funny how the ultimate central state organization is where you go to for info.
liberty student:Not that you care about all of the Utes you would displace right? Because the end justifies the means?
I've been to Utah. Plenty of places with no one to displace.