Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?

E. R. Olovetto:

xahrx:

E. R. Olovetto:

Appeals to public opinion are not valid.

Fine, let me know when your psychoanalysis of him is done and you have something else to go on.

E. R. Olovetto:

You say it is "practical" as a means toward your own self interest to advocate that your rulers murder Ahmadinejad, because [he is a threat/crazy/whatever it is you are saying]. Pretend that I have put on my magic "rational statist hat" for a moment and we are talking about conventional international law. On what basis is one country allowed to own nukes for self-defense and another not?

On whatever basis the stronger country decides.  I again find it funny that in such a group of radical anarchists such appeals are made to the UN and to international law.

1. I didn't claim anyone was crazy. You did. You claimed that your assessment of craziness (along with the appeal to public opinion) justified supporting murder.

Nice try on conflating issues.  What worries me is his mental status AND his grab for nukes.  One without the other doesn't justify murder.  I do not advocate killing him because he is crazy.  I advocate killing him if he gets nukes and starts posturing as if or even does use them and this confirms the fact that he is a nut job.

E. R. Olovetto:

2. Might makes right? You seem to agree on my actual argument, nobody is justified to own nuclear weapons, but it isn't "practical" enough for you. More practical is murder. I was ratcheting down my argument to your inconsistent/flawed level, not appealing to UN legitimacy. I think it should be quite obvious that I said nothing about the UN and find it a purely criminal organization itself.

Ideally, no.  In reality, no.  Might however does make an impression.  Rights exist as an abstraction, only those who are willing to fight to maintain them will in fact do so.  Peace through superior fire power is the time honored method for when reason and rational discourse go by the wayside.  You may not like it, I don't really like it, but it works so long as you don't pull the trigger too often.

E. R. Olovetto:

I am asking you your justification, in terms of traditionally accepted ius inter gentes (international law), not libertarian law, for your inconsistent position.

I recognize neither as authoritative so why would I give you that answer, other than falling for you trying to dictate the terms of debate?  You do not get to arbitrarily limit my answers to what you find acceptable.  I couldn't give a turd less about international law or libertarian law, and have already admitted my position is inconsistent for purposes of practical application.  What the hell is the point of trying to engage me in a debate on any of those three admitted points?  You going to prove my position is inconsistent with international law?  Be my guest,I admit as much and I couldn't care less.  You going to prove my position is inconsistent with libertarian law?  Be my guest, I admit as much and I couldn't care less.  You going to prove my position is inconsistent with my own ideals?  Be my guest, I've already admitted as much and given the reason for that compromise.

So I guess the only remaining point is: can you accept that someone with similar ideals comes to a radically different conclusion, and do so without necessarily bunching them in with Stalin, Hitler, W., and other famous statists...

Juan:

The the US has used nukes before in the past and on foreign soil is not necessarily relevant to what the US government would do to its own citizens on its own soil with nukes.

Yes, the american murderers are less likely to target you who are an american (and a nationalist and militarist to boot).

But the point that the "stupid radicals" are making is that the american murderers are a global threat to liberty. I don't think that people in this forum give a damn about you 'feeling' safe or not.

At any rate what I am saying is that if you were truly interested in freedom you'd do something about the BIGGEST threat to freedom on earth - that is the american governemnt. But you don't give a damn about freedom. You are only interested in your own safety. Wait. Even that is a lie since iran is not going to attack NJ or wherever you live any time soon.

So you are either illiterate or being deliberately obtuse.

In your case I think you are either a war propagandist or a war propagandist. Which is it ?

Actually I stand by my original assessment: you're not worth responding to.

wilderness:

The u.s. is over-there.  over-there.  and as auction- mentioned by his first-hand conversations with people outside of the u.s. the u.s is the threat and many in those other regions of the earth feel the need of self-defense is in order against the u.s.  it's a he said, he said game, 'no i'm acting out of self-defense.' 'no, i am.' 'no, i am'., etc....

so for you it doesn't matter as long as there are no wars going on in NY, as long as they are over across the ocean or in Mexico (? i don't know), but as long as they are not in NY you feel safe.  I guess you are looking out for #1 eh?

As with Juan I'm going to have to stop responding until you square the above accusation with my repeated statements that I want to pull our troops out of those countries.  Perhaps one of you geniuses could answer that.  Or are you are all so ideologically blinded and/or stupid that anyone and everyone who disagrees with you is of a piece with no distinctions to be made at all?

liberty student:

They were right in Iraq, and people using your precise rationale, went head and murdered hundreds of thousands of people.

Presumptuous bullshit.  I did not nor do I support the Iraq war and never did.  If it had been proven to my satisfaction that Saddam Hussein was a threat, I would have supported killing him and only him.

liberty student:

I'd also like an answer about what proof you have of a nuclear weapons program.  Have you inspected Iran?  Can you provide a source of anyone who has inspected Iran?

Have you?  Because if you haven't all you're relying is the authority of someone else.  Which is all I'd be doing too, and given your devotion to logic and reason we wouldn't want that would we.  Nothing's worse than people using their own judgement.

Spideynw:

More fear-mongering.  Do you have anything with substance?  Or is that all you do, is use fear-mongering?  Because this is just opinion.  Nothing else.

Did you completely miss their recent elections?

xahrx:

As with Juan I'm going to have to stop responding until you square the above accusation with my repeated statements that I want to pull our troops out of those countries.

ok, good.  except my little nit-pick is I wouldn't call such troops, "our troops".  they are people with their own minds and hearts.  but i think you would agree with me on this point.  so no quarrel with that fact i'm sure.

xahrx:

Perhaps one of you geniuses could answer that.  Or are you are all so ideologically blinded and/or stupid that anyone and everyone who disagrees with you is of a piece with no distinctions to be made at all?

i answered.

xahrx:

Presumptuous bullshit.  I did not nor do I support the Iraq war and never did.

I never claimed you did.  So your claim of presumptuous bullshit is in fact, presumptuous bullshit.

xahrx:

If it had been proven to my satisfaction that Saddam Hussein was a threat, I would have supported killing him and only him.

A couple things to address here.  Why was it not proven to your satisfaction?  Or was it?  If so, how?

Also, do you believe that the presumption of innocence is irrelevant?

xahrx:

Have you?  Because if you haven't all you're relying is the authority of someone else.

Indeed.  Which doesn't answer my question.  Since you haven't then you must be relying on an authority.  Who is that authority?

xahrx:

Which is all I'd be doing too, and given your devotion to logic and reason we wouldn't want that would we.

If you feel that being illogical and unreasonable is how we should approach the world, that's fine.  Just be clear that you are ignoring logic and reason, and the debate is over.

xahrx:

filc:

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. 

Calling someone a 'statist' because they dare say a pure anarcho capitalist solution might not fly in the world at large is stupid

You missed the point and I haven't the energy to explain it twice. And quiet frankly, your opinions over what is or is not stupid carries very little weight here. You should know that.

xahrx:

filc:

You made an argument that LS believes there are no vengeful people in the world. In doing so I think you missed his point.

Quite the contrary.  I said if he wanted to maintain his ideological purity he was welcome to it.  I would rather survive if it came down to that on this particular question.

In other words, you missed his point. Or your being evasive, one of the two.

xahrx:

Now you're on the same bandwagon?  Let's go over the points I have made so far:

• I want our troops in the area, in all areas, drawn down to nothing eventually.
• I think a phased pull out with some negotiations over time is a better approach than just leaving.
• I have said that if a threat arises it should be taken out at the individual level, like DinnerJacket.
• I have said specifically I do not support sanctions, I do not support bombing.

You've done this alot. You alter the point of my response. It's essentially a strawmen. While you may be bringing up a valid point it's in response to an entirely different point. As such your talking in circles. Stop that. Allow me to review our dialogue.

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.

xahrx:

I disagree.  And even if it does make me as evil as DinnerJacket, I'd be alive and he'd be dead

Allow me to be clear. I'm not stating that the points  you mentioned are irrelevant or not good to the general topic as a whole. I'm saying they are out of context so they become somewhat non-sequitur on a point by  point basis. In other words, I raise Point A and point B. You respond to Point B with the answer of Point A, and point A with the answer of point B. It becomes confusing and doesn't flow well.

xahrx:

Yet I am repeatedly asked why I want to not only keep troops there but escalate hostilities,

I personally did not accuse you of this. I tried to dispute with you that leaving sooner would be a better economic option and is far more practical from a logistics standpoint. You responded with an opinionated statement. Which is fine. The reason why people are calling you statist though is because your calling them stupid. This goes back to the first point of this post.

xahrx:

Which to turn your favorite debating tactic on you is the exact argument socialists use.

What? You didn't turn a nything on it's face. You made an argument that it was un-practical to remove troops immediately. I exploded your fallacy that it would be both logistically and economically easier to leave now rather then go in prologued increments.  Not to mention the amount of saved human life.

You seem to have a hard time specifically sticking with my points.

xahrx:

filc:

you are using alot of nationalist rhetoric to defend your case.

Oooo.  Nationalist rhetoric. 

I was kindly trying to explain to you why people were calling you a statist. I was trying to help you dude. Seriously did you just read the first  sentence of each of my points than respond?

xahrx:

filc:

Making such statements, especially on these forums, is an inventation to harsh criticism.

Then show why it is not necessarily the case.

We have repeatedly and you dismiss them because it does not align with your personal illogical opinions.

xahrx:

filc:

If people truely wanted institutionalized services they would develop them so without the use of coersion. 

Are you really this dellusional? 

Am I delusional for thinking a market works? I guess I am. Either that or your delusional for ignoring the logical conclusions that capitalism comes to. Whats ironic is you called me delusional for making a capitalist argument. But repeatedly called me socialist throughout your entire response to me. 

Allow me to illustrate

filc:

If people truely wanted institutionalized services they would develop them so without the use of coersion. 

(In other words a market)

xahrx:

Which to turn your favorite debating tactic on you is the exact argument socialists use.

xahrx:

In doing so you make the same mistake socialists made with the incentive problem,

Try again Xahrx. Go back and actually read my responses rather then the first sentence of each point.

wilderness:

ok, good.  except my little nit-pick is I wouldn't call such troops, "our troops".  they are people with their own minds and hearts.  but i think you would agree with me on this point.  so no quarrel with that fact i'm sure.

Indeed, but nitpicks like that get you thrown out of debates in the real world.  Yes, I agree, but can we skip the need of establishing our own little personal jargon for this discussion and use some common colloquialisms to make things flow a bit easier?

wilderness:

i answered.

Not that I have seen.  All I have seen is repeated attempts to conflate a slower pull out than you desire with firebombing, from damn near everyone on this board.  Aggression I can take.  Outright idiocy, I can't.  Or rather, I won't take it seriously.  So how about a deal, I'll drop the ad hominems if you for once admit that pulling out troops at a slightly slower rate than immediately isn't necessarily the same as carpet bombing entire countries and trying to establish a pax americana?  Because you see, I would like to live in a more free world than we currently have, but the complete inability of anyone else on the planet to take people like you seriously because you lump anyone and everyone of differring opinions into one category, that being statist, is a major obstacle to even getting in to the debates.  If there is going to be a freer world in the future it is not going to be just because you guys sat around with your thumbs up your asses and polished your consciences with your ideological purity.  It is also going to be because of people like myself, who are willing to engage the world and take a few ideological punches if the end result is closer to the ideal we all want.  There's nothing wrong with maintaining the pure position.  There's everything wrong with vilifying people with the same ideals but more desire to compromise now for possible real results now.

Or, you can continue your outreach program of screaming "STATIST!" at every disagreement and then huddling in a corner to read the latest, most pure Anarcho Capitalist screed that sees circulation to all of a few hundred people worldwide.  A recipe for success I'm sure...

xahrx:

wilderness:

ok, good.  except my little nit-pick is I wouldn't call such troops, "our troops".  they are people with their own minds and hearts.  but i think you would agree with me on this point.  so no quarrel with that fact i'm sure.

Indeed, but nitpicks like that get you thrown out of debates in the real world.  Yes, I agree, but can we skip the need of establishing our own little personal jargon for this discussion and use some common colloquialisms to make things flow a bit easier?

ok.  we agreed on that little nit-pick.  let's move on shall we.  this is the REAL world.  I'm not in a fantasy realm and neither are you.  so let's not get caught up in red herrings shall we.

xahrx:

wilderness:

i answered.

Not that I have seen.

I said and I repeat, "ok, good".  word for word.  This was in reference to you saying you want the troops out - we agree.  enjoy the agreement.  i am.

xahrx:

if you for once admit that pulling out troops at a slightly slower rate than immediately isn't necessarily the same as carpet bombing entire countries and trying to establish a pax americana?

i'm not involved in that discussion.  i don't think i can speak for the troops, but this is a whole other separate discussion than from i initially began our current dialogue upon.  i'm willing to enjoy our agreement above, though, we may disagree on the means - the how we get from here to there.

xahrx:

Because you see, I would like to live in a more free world than we currently have, but the complete inability of anyone else on the planet to take people like you seriously because you lump anyone and everyone of differring opinions into one category, that being statist, is a major obstacle to even getting in to the debates.  If there is going to be a freer world in the future it is not going to be just because you guys sat around with your thumbs up your asses and polished your consciences with your ideological purity.  It is also going to be because of people like myself, who are willing to engage the world and take a few ideological punches if the end result is closer to the ideal we all want.  There's nothing wrong with maintaining the pure position.  There's everything wrong with vilifying people with the same ideals but more desire to compromise now for possible real results now.

'the pure position' will always battle the 'compromise(d) position'.  I can't help that fact, but at least you know I will not initiate agression against you nor anyone else, and in the heart of hearts i don't think you want to either.  so let's sleep easier please.  i understand you're trying to find a way to 'stop the insanity' - and I am too.  So there again, let's enjoy this second agreement shall we?

xahrx:

Or, you can continue your outreach program of screaming "STATIST!" at every disagreement

I never once called you a 'statist', let alone scream it.

xahrx:

and then huddling in a corner to read the latest, most pure Anarcho Capitalist screed that sees circulation to all of a few hundred people worldwide.  A recipe for success I'm sure...

lol

xahrx:

Or, you can continue your outreach program of screaming "STATIST!" at every disagreement and then huddling in a corner to read the latest, most pure Anarcho Capitalist screed that sees circulation to all of a few hundred people worldwide.  A recipe for success I'm sure...

Removing all the strawmen and red herrings from this discussion would seriously clean up this thread. It wuold also make the posts like 50% smaller and more directly to the point.

xahrx:

Not that I have seen.  All I have seen is repeated attempts to conflate a slower pull out than you desire with firebombing, from damn near everyone on this board.  

To continue to keep troops there must necessarily result in there being yet more death and destruction by those troops, something you must implicitly accept if you want a slower withdraw.

And now let us return to Iran. I feel that no government has any right to possess weapons that cannot be used in any capacity save for widespread death and devastation, pollution, and irradiation. That being said, I do not see how another state ruled by psychotic fascists that have nukes can call the Iranian leadership crazy and demand that the Iranian government never acquire these weapons, especially when these same people would likely support Truman's decision in Japan.

Even if I believed the claims that Iran is a threat, I would not support a war that is sure to be financed with theft and will kill far more than the alleged men who want to use the red button.

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.  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.

The challenge comes from removing the veil of ignorance from the average person. In order to do this, Ancap needs to be marketable. Watch some television commercials, movie previews, movies, or anything else that is trying to convince the average person of anything. The ones that fail are the ones that use logic to try and sell you on something. The most successful appeal to emotion. The reason a voluntary system has not arisen, is because of the failure of most voluntaryists/ancaps/etc. to realize that until someone's veil of ignorance is removed, they will despise logic. We need something simple, which appeals to the emotional side of people, and makes them feel like 'the bad guy in the movie'. (*The reason for religion and governments success is partially attributable to this.)

In my opinion, this can be done the same way that politicians have been doing it for centuries. Playing with words. I am not concerned with the sounds of a word, I am concerned with their meaning. If a WORD such as 'anarchy' brings about negative feelings and emotions in 95% of people- get rid of it- adopt a new word. If people fight to the end to defend the WORD 'government', why not utilize it? Why not build on it? Why not create a dichotomy between 'coercive governments', and 'voluntary governments'? Create an appeal which would demonstrate the coercive nature of 'regular governments' and show the morally superior nature of voluntaryism.

The 'libertarian movement' is divided. We have those who attempt (and fail miserably) to gradually change the system from the inside, and those 'purists' who are more radical, yet too have failed to bring about even a theoretical system which would bring about an end to 'coercive governments.' I am not suggesting this is the 'final answer' or even an answer. Rather, it is an approach. Much like in hand to hand combat, the more powerful will generally overpower the weaker. However, look at how jujitsu approaches it- rather than putting force against force, the goal is to utilize your opponents strength against him to achieve your goal.

We are on the teetering point of finding a system to dissolve the state for good. Lets put our heads together, think creatively, and beat this beast (or figure out how to) in our lifetime.

xahrx:

K.C. Farmer:

Even with emotions and imperfect information, your choice is to use logic and reasoning or not to use logic and reasoning.  If you choose not to use logic and reasoning, don't try to justify your position from a stand point of logic and reasoning.

Insisting on one and only one possible approach out of many when there are a myriad of people in the world with varying degrees of disagreement with your principles is not logic, it is misanthropy.  Which I'm all in favor of so long as it's admitted and not hidden behind a cloak of 'reason'.

Where have I insisted there is one and only one possible approach?  There are many possible approaches using logic and reason, just as there are many possible approaches that do not apply logic and reason.  Just because someone else disagrees with my principles, doesn't mean I have not used logic and reason.  When you compromise your principles, abandon logic and reason, and act out of emotion with imperfect information you don't have a leg to stand on.

xahrx:

K.C. Farmer:

Big difference between abandoning your principles and living in State-occupied territory.  I have a choice in diluting my political affiliations to attract others for potential political gain (although I question whether there even is political gain to be had by doing that).  I have no choice in living under the oppression of a state.

Bullshit.  If you wanted to you could get your own little anarcho capitalist paradise going somewhere.  You choose not to because the cost is too high.  Just like you choose to drive on government roads because flying in unsubsidized food using an all private air service that deliberately tries to avoid dealing with the government air traffic control rules simply to satisfy principle is ridiculously high cost for little return.  You have not shown a difference, you've offerred an excuse for your compromises, nothing more.  Either live by your own standards of purity or admit others with similar ideals may have differring priorities and degrees to which they are willing to compromise.

The State takes from me what you willingly give it.  That is the difference.  While your intentions may be good (or not), you have surrendered what little freedom you have to the State in exchange for an emotional feeling - so much to give in exchange for so little.

xahrx:

Spideynw:

More fear-mongering.  Do you have anything with substance?  Or is that all you do, is use fear-mongering?  Because this is just opinion.  Nothing else.

Did you completely miss their recent elections?

More fear-mongering and conjecture.  You think spending tax-payer dollars to assuage your fear is OK huh?  I mean, if we are just going to keep talking about hypotheticals here, I can just make the claim that the longer the U.S. government keeps its troops over there, the worse it will be for people considered U.S. citizens.  At least my fear-mongering does not result in more tax payer spending.

x:

Actually I stand by my original assessment: you're not worth responding to.

Translation : since I'm not buying your nonsense you take your ball and go play elsewhere.

The thing is, different audiences require different kinds of propaganda. If you were talking to randroids you would be saying something like "the morally right action is to nuke the whole middle east EXCEPT ISRAEL of course"

Now, no doubt you know that you can't use that sort of propaganda here - you need a different and more subtle tactic :

1) you say your ideal is a voluntary society (though you don't consider yourself a libertarian - pretty consistent)

2)you say that you even oppose american empire ! at least in theory...

3)...however, in practice you think that the american military should keep on invading the middle east (okay, maybe bring back say, 10 soldiers per year...)

4)...but here's the important thing : you parrot to a letter the bogeyman story about the evil iranian government and the crazy people who run it. In reality the people who run the iranian government are no crazier than the people who run the gov't of the place you live in. A government that you even call 'your own' no ?

If you were presenting your case to a bunch of neocons, I would consider you mistaken but somewhat sincere. However in the context of this forum your position is rubbish.

xahrx:

auctionguy10:

There aren't any Iranians running into discos and exploding or flying planes into buildings. But of course they're all the same subhuman brown people so who cares.

Once more we have a moronic reply.  No, the Iranians generally don't tend to do that.  However there is somewhat of a divide between the Iranian people and THEIR GOVERNMENT, specifically the people at the top who tend to be more radical.  If the people of Iran were the issue, there would be no issue.  I could give a shit less if they had a reasonably representative democracy and had nukes.  The problem is those at the top are not of a piece with the people they rule, and might not be against developing nukes and 'losing' one or two, said nukes ending up in the hands of those who would willingly explode in a disco.

Well maybe you should give some EXAMPLES of iranian government activities that you find so dangerous when it comes to the United States? Why bring up suicide bombers at all in regards to Iran when there aren't any iranians engaging in that activity? You're lumping everyone in the middle east into one category- so yeah its hard for me not to paint it as racist. You don't seem like an idiot so I don't think you are but what else am I suppose to think from what you just said?

 Do you really think this country has a reasonably representative democracy? What makes iran more dangerous than any other country? if you're afraid of ANY country that had a nuclear weapon then you'd make sense. But you single out Iran. Why in heavens name would Iran give some fringe group a nuclear weapon? They're not idiots- you don't just hand over power like that to anyone.  You're making up a fantasy scenario and then saying that's the reason to fear Iran. I could just as easily say that its possible the US can give nukes to some fringe group that would likely explode in a disco- especially since currently, the United States IS trying to bribe former iraqi and afghan insurgents with cash.

 

xahrx:

auctionguy10:

How many middle easterners are dropping huge payloads on villages killing men women and children, or traveling thousands of miles to bust into people's houses and taking them away for permanent imprisonment and torture...then after all that being big enough jerks to tell you its for your own good?

Again, and for the hard of sight on this board, I DO NOT SUPPORT THOSE FUCKING POLICIES SO WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF CONSTANTLY REFERRING TO THEM AS IF I DO?

How pathetically and ideologically blinded are you people?

Well that's all well and good if you don't support those policies. But with those actions going on right infront of you...how can you possibly think that the iranian government is more dangerous and "crazy" than the United States government? Do you understand why this is confusing to everyone?

xahrx:

[

auctionguy10:

I don't see how the last point about forcing women to wear certain clothes makes them more of a NUCLEAR THREAT. You have to be joking.

[Not noticing a somewhat medieval mindset among the culture at large with which you're dealing has to be a joke.  If they were still using the iron maiden or thumb screws would that be relevant?  I would sure as hell think so.  Treating women like dogs and dogs like lunch is a problem.  And yes that is rhetoric, not to be taken literally genius.  The point is other cultures can be just as screwed up as western culture and worse.  Stop bathing in the self righteous pleasure of rebelling against your own government for five minutes and take a moment to realize the problem with all governments, and then that practically speaking your only defense from an aggressive foreign government might be the one you currently live under.

Yeah forcing women to wear anything is immoral and I don't support it. But I'm from that culture- and no there isn't a medieval mindset. Here's the deal- a lot of those places are poverty holes and they aren't safe(just like anywhere with high crime)- women get raped and attacked if they go out. The clothing's purpose is to protect women from harrasment by getting rid of lust(whether or not it actually accomplishes that is a different question)- a lot of people would love to send their daughters to school- but they don't live in cushy environments like over here, and if a father has no way to protect his daughter on her way to school or back- and can fear a possible attack going on INSIDE the school- then he's not going to send her there. That's the mindset of the people over there.  There's a huge difference between that and a damn Iron Maiden- that's just a silly comparison.

You say they treat women like dogs and lunch? Like we don't do that here? Women are objectified as pieces of meat in this country all day and only portrayed as sex objects and skin with no humanity.  We don't have Pimps and hoes in this country? But I'm not gonna say that's the reason to fear American foreign policy- it has nothing to do with anything.

But anyway- the point is- how is IRAN an aggressive foreign government? They aren't. The US is the aggressor here and always has been when it comes to Iran...and I think you know that.

auctionguy10:

Why bring up suicide bombers at all in regards to Iran when there aren't any iranians engaging in that activity?

Well technically there are "Iranians" that are engaging in suicide bombings. They are the Sunni fundementalist and Balochi seperatist group Jundullah, from the east of the country which performs terrorist acts inside Iran and receives funding from the USA.

Fascinating really. The only Iranian (by citizenship) sucide bombers are at war with Iran and are being funded by the US. So by America`s own doctrine that bombing those who support terrorism is OK Iran would have every right to bomb the US.

filc:

xahrx:

Or, you can continue your outreach program of screaming "STATIST!" at every disagreement and then huddling in a corner to read the latest, most pure Anarcho Capitalist screed that sees circulation to all of a few hundred people worldwide.  A recipe for success I'm sure...

Removing all the strawmen and red herrings from this discussion would seriously clean up this thread. It wuold also make the posts like 50% smaller and more directly to the point.

xahrx:

Unforunately in your dictionary Red Herring seems refer to a point which is true but which you don't want to deal with. This thread is full of people asking me why I want to kill foreigners en masse, bomb foreign cities, etc., when I have specifically stated I want the exact opposite. 

Xahrx at this point your just arguing to argue. And the point I was making is you are not directly responding to people's posts. I already pointed this out in my post above, anyone who's kept up with this thread can see that. You can see that for yourself. Some of your responses make no sense what so ever as they didn't have anything to do with the point at hand. I can only assume that your emotions have taken you to an unproductive level, or your deliberately evading points, or something else. But if your little one plus 3, two plus two analogy has any representation of how you think this discussion has gone then I doubt we will be able to continue in a constructive way.

My point is that 50% of this thread is wasted text and is garbage.

xahrx:

 

And, if God or nature or random chance willing, some real freedom does come our way eventually, I don't doubt you'll be congratulating each other on your achievements while bitching and moaning about what imperfections remain in the world, while people like me bear the real scars of actually getting shit done and ending as much state lunacy as we can by engaging in the oh so horrible activity of working with people who we might not agree with one hundred percent of the time without villifying them as evil or 'statists' simply because they have a different take on life.

 

You're taking this way too personally. Although I admit maybe it sounds like me and others have been taking it personally as well during this thread- but lets throw that aside who cares. The argument is- it seems like you think the Iranian government is more dangerous and unruly than the US government- which is a point that people can't wrap their heads around. I definitely can't.

^^ Yup, he's blinded by his patriotic sense of moral superiority to the fact that his country is the largest terrorist organization in the world and only to detonate nukes in a metropolitan area.

It isn't worth it to argue with such irrational people.

Not to mention that the talk about nukes is mostly irrelevant. Ordinary bombing done by the american military/government has killed way more people than atomic bombs.

But of course, since this is propaganda, nukes are a nice element that enhances "storytelling".

filc:

Xahrx at this point your just arguing to argue.

Actually I thought it was pretty well implied in that post that I've kind of given up on this topic.  I'm just disappointed that people who should understand the difference between marginal and categorical choices should be so demanding of others that they categorically reject any and all forms of and actions of the state when, if someone were to analogously ask them to choose between all water or all diamonds, their first response would be to point out how unrealistic and thus irrelevant such a choice is in the real world.  People make political choices much as they do all other choices; on the margins.  There is, at base, no difference between you, LS, or anyone else out there who advocates for a smaller state or none at all except the degree and scope of compromises you're willing to make to live in the world with some degree of comfort.  To me it's analogous to steroid users who think weed smokers belong in prison, and weed smokers who think steroid users belong in prison.  Both end up getting screwed by the same policy and enemy, but because each is so preoccupied with their differences and trying to rationalize their drug use while demonizing the use of another, they stay separated and ineffective rather than joining forces to fight a common enemy.