When a terrorist organization fires from a crowded place, they leave the defending side no choice but to fire back. In the process innocent civilians might get killed. But it is the responsibility of the terrorist organization, not the state that fights against it. They are liable for the damage caused.
But a "terrorist organization" is just a criminal organization. Are you saying that if, say, some guys are robbing a bank in downtown LA, and one of them opens fire on the cops who arrive to stop them, that the cops are justified in bringing in tanks and levelling the bank, customers and all, and then going on TV afterwards to say "oh, the guy who opened fire on us is responsible for all those innocent deaths. Don't blame us!" Somehow I don't think the public would quite go for that.
A terrorist organization is not just a criminal organization. Palestinian terrorists represent the interests of the majority of the Palestinian population. They have voted for them, they pay taxes to them, they emotionally support them, they send their kids to serve in their ranks. So in your example if the bank belonged to the same criminal organization, and the employes were supporters of this organization, then of course the police could level it.
Eugene, you haven't addressed any of my points. Instead, you went on with more of your collectivist bullshit which basically states that all Palestinians are terrorists and Jew-haters - something which isn't remotely true. You say you believe in the NAP, yet you're advocating for the initiation of aggression.
As a side note, this is what every oppressor says before he's overthrown:
However once the population will suffer enormously from their decision to support these organizations, they might rethink their attitude.
"Punishing" innocent people just radicalizes them and acts as a great recruiting tool for the opposition.
Political Atheists Blog
Eugene, voting is NOT a coercive action. Only because Hamas was voted into power doesn't justify the mass extermination of all Palestinians. Furthermore, even if we consider voting for Hamas a coercive action (when it clearly is not), then there still are other Palestinians who did NOT vote for Hamas, and thus deserve to be spared.
By your logic, all Americans should be exterminated because most Americans either voted for the Democrats or the Republicans the past few election cycles, and both parties have conspired in wars of aggression.
By your logic, ANYONE who votes should be executed, as every political party advocates for the initiation of aggression in some form (e.g. taxation, restrictions on voluntary transactions, war). And EVERYONE in a country where the majority of the population votes should be, therefore, exterminated.
I'll just come out and say it: you sound like a NAZI.
Eugene: I will explain why my position on war is not only utilitarian but ethical as well. When a terrorist organization fires from a crowded place, they leave the defending side no choice but to fire back. In the process innocent civilians might get killed. But it is the responsibility of the terrorist organization, not the state that fights against it. They are liable for the damage caused. In addition, if the majority of people vote for a party that then goes and commits aggression, then those who voted for that party share the liability. Just as if I payed a PDA to kill innocent person A, not only the PDA will be liable for his death but also myself. Whether you vote using moey or in democratic elections doesn't matter. However even if the aggressor is not democracy but a dictator, the population still shares some responsibility since the dictator fights a war using the resources of the population. Its as if I left my gun on the street and then a criminal picked it up and shot someone. I will liable for not protecting my weapon. Most importantly when an aggressor uses weapons of mass destruction or just massive weapons, I think it is completely ethical to shoot back at least with the same power, even if you hit people who were not part of the fight. Those people are still not innocent because they let the aggressor shoot from their territory and therefore knowingly put their life at risk.
I will explain why my position on war is not only utilitarian but ethical as well.
In addition, if the majority of people vote for a party that then goes and commits aggression, then those who voted for that party share the liability. Just as if I payed a PDA to kill innocent person A, not only the PDA will be liable for his death but also myself. Whether you vote using moey or in democratic elections doesn't matter.
However even if the aggressor is not democracy but a dictator, the population still shares some responsibility since the dictator fights a war using the resources of the population. Its as if I left my gun on the street and then a criminal picked it up and shot someone. I will liable for not protecting my weapon.
Most importantly when an aggressor uses weapons of mass destruction or just massive weapons, I think it is completely ethical to shoot back at least with the same power, even if you hit people who were not part of the fight. Those people are still not innocent because they let the aggressor shoot from their territory and therefore knowingly put their life at risk.
So instead of having a trial, just kill them all? Sick.
Anyways, there is no such thing as a "defensive" war. Both sides ALWAYS claim the other side was the aggressor.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
I do believe in NAP in exactly the same way as Murray Rothbard believes in NAP, but I completely object to the application of NAP in wars. Wars are another matter altogether. A war is not a civil society. There is no practical way to perform due process or to kill aggressors without collateral damage. When artillery fire is used to kill hundreds, you can't go and search for evidence and invite suspects to court, that's just ridiculous. You just fight the bastards. Its either you or them.
You can't apply NAP to massive conflicts such as the WW2 or the Israeli-Arab wars. Nevertheless I do believe voting is participation in the aggression. This is not different than paying a hitman. Whether you vote in the market or in a democratic election doesn't matter. Every citizen who voted for Hamas, voted for a charter which explicitly states that the main goal of Hamas is to destroy Israel and kill all Jews. Every citizen who voted for this organization had the intent to kill Jews, and provided the means to Hamas to do so with his tax money. Now I'm not saying all Palestinians should be exterminated, not even the majority who voted for Hamas. However I am not much worried about collateral damage since I know that most of the civilians who are killed by the collateral damage have supported Hamas and its murderous campaign with votes and with money.
You said taht punishing innocent people just radicalizes them. Well you don't live in the middle east. I have to tell you that in my experience and in the experience of 80% of the Israelis the opposite is true. You have to project power, to beat the crap out of your enemies. Only then the enemy will respect you and fear you. We need that fear and respect to keep aggressors out of our lands. Why no one attacks China, Russia or the United States? Is it because they are nice or is it because they are feared? Weakness emboldens your enemies. This was true 2000 years ago when Roman empire was in power, and it is true now.
If you look at it from the Palestinian side- Israel is a terrorist state which seeks to completely subjugate or eliminate them, and unlike Hamas has the power to do so and comparing the death tolls themselves is enough to see the truth. You're saying the palestinians started it, Israel just retaliates, this is just propaganda. Israel kills palestinians on a regular basis just for the hell of it. Even going as far as to use israeli warships to bomb a family picnic at a beach. Things aren't as simple as you make it out to be. There are too many individual actors with their own reasons for what they do for us to group all Palestinian or Israeli actions together- even within Hamas and the Israeli military.
The people who voted for Hamas took the same approach you advocate- that weakness emboldens enemies, so pick the team that actually fights for its people instead of the pathetic group that preceded them that never got anything done in all the years they were in power. There aren't many choices for the beggar in a prison. The excuse that Israel only wants to defend their lands and suddenly the evil palestinians showed up is laughably untrue by anyone who wants to look.
Eugene:The difference between Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah is that Israel doesn't want anything except defending its lands, while Hamas and Hezbollah want to take these lands.
Which is ironic, since Israel took the lands in the first place.
Eugene:However it is clear which side is the aggressor and which side is on the defensive.
Israel was the aggressor when it took the lands. Now it is the defender. It is good to be King.
However I am not much worried about collateral damage since I know that most of the civilians who are killed by the collateral damage have supported Hamas and its murderous campaign with votes and with money.
I am glad you are omniscient and have such divine powers.
Anyway: Large number of Israelis are awesome people. Funny, easygoing, and nice. And they don't deserve their loony defense hawk friends at home, who want to find new enemies for them. Just kick back at the beach and relax; what more would anyone want in Israel?
Obviously, we are all going to live forever, else we wouldn't be worrying about potential terror threats and using pre-emptive attacks on them. Similar precautions we must take against lightning striking us or some invisible flesh eating virus suddenly getting breathed into our lungs.
I do believe in NAP in exactly the same way as Murray Rothbard believes in NAP, but I completely object to the application of NAP in wars. Wars are another matter altogether. ...
Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to study an individual with a siege mentality.
I don't want to start an Israeli-Palestinian debate, so let's take virtual countries. There is a dispute over land. In the last decades the land belonged to country A. However country B wants to take the land from country A because citizens of country B believe the land is rightfully theirs. Citizens of country A claim the opposite.
The majority of citizens of country B vote for militaristic parties and fund them. The government of country B uses indiscriminate weapons against country A in order to create terror and harm as many civilians as possible. Country A retaliates with air strikes to kill the militants, but also harms civlians in the process. Yet no matter how much it retaliates, citizens of country B continue their campaign until all the land is caputred. What should country A do?
Eugene:What should country A do?
Open borders to Palestine Country B?
Yet no matter how much it retaliates, citizens of country B continue their campaign until all the land is caputred.
There's your sign...
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Opening the borders would work only in anarcho-capitalism, but Israel is a welfare state. Would you open your borders completely to Afghan people?
I always thought that the actual Japanese military high command refused surrender, while the civilian part of the Japanese government wanted to surrender. Also, absent from these discussions seems to the number of Japanese civilians that would have been killed in a land invasion.
Even after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, didn't military officers (lower ranking, I'll admit) try attack the radio stations from which the surrender message was broadcast?
Eugene:Would you open your borders completely to Afghan people?
In a heartbeat. I would let them live in my house. Afghani food is fantastic.
Palestinian terrorism can not be that bad, if you are unwilling to incur a cost as small as this to get it to stop.
Marko: Opening the borders would work only in anarcho-capitalism, but Israel is a welfare state. Would you open your borders completely to Afghan people? Palestinian terrorism can not be that bad, if you are unwilling to incur a cost as small as this to get it to stop.
I LOLed.
Double the population of Israel with 6 million hostile people, a good portion of whom are radical fundamentalists? No, I definitely prefer suicide bombings. They still hate Jews, so inviting 6 million enemies into your territory is just suicide.
You changed your line of argument. First you could not 'let them in' because they would go on welfare. But now you can not 'let them in' because they hate Jews.
No, I said it is only possible in anarcho-capitalism which enables land owners to block people from entering the land. But Israel has 100% free travel everywhere and laws that enable everyone to buy a house in every city or town. Thousands of new hostiles living in your town is very scary.
Isn't that the problem the palestinians are facing? That many hostile enemies are enroaching on THEIR territory- a good portion of whom are radical fundamentalists? I think the problem with this situation that you're creating is that its way too narrow.
Isn't that the problem the palestinians are facing? That many hostile enemies are enroaching on THEIR territory- a good portion of whom are radical fundamentalists?
They might think the territory is theirs. I think it is not. This is irrelevant though. They will not be allowed in because that would cause a huge deterioriation of safety and standard of living for Jews, and possibly worse.
The settlements and bulldozing of palestinian homes and all kinds of blockades(not to mention real advanced rocketfire) have caused quite a bit of deterioration of safety and standard of living for palestinians(whether muslim or christian).
The palestinians are just using the same arguments you are. "Those israelies might think the territory is theirs, I think it is not. "
It doesn't matter what they think. I definitely prefer rockets and suicide bombings from the few Palestinians who manage to sneak into Israel than rockets and suicide bombings from 6 million Palestinians who were let freely into Israel
If it doesn't matter what they think- then it should follow that it doesn't matter what you think either. 6 million palestinians would not begin strapping on suicide bombs when they come into Israel
Eugene:It doesn't matter what they think. I definitely prefer rockets and suicide bombings from the few Palestinians who manage to sneak into Israel than rockets and suicide bombings from 6 million Palestinians who were let freely into Israel
And as auctionguy said, they have the same rationale. What you prefer isn't any better than what they prefer. It is just that your side can use more force. And when a society uses force to solve conflicts, it is a race to the bottom. Ultimately the Palestinians will win I think because Israel is going to collapse from trying to maintain a conflict with overwhelming force.
So they get what they want: the freedom to live on the land that they believe is theirs. Why, then, would they want to blow themselves up?
There is no great short-term solution. But I don't see how killing even more Palestinians - especially in the wanton manner you're suggesting - is a practical long-term solution. Short of complete genocide, you'll just anger and radicalize more Palestinians, who will believe their only solution is the complete annihilation of Israeli Jews. (of course, annihilating all Palestinians will just get everyone else mad at you)
The vast majority of people in the west don't believe in NAP. Virtually none of the Palestinians believe in NAP or anything that resembles it. Most of them are indoctrinated by a very intolerant religion and media. For example Hamas charter states that their goal is to murder all Jews. I quote from their charter:
The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.
Palestinians are very intolerant and easily angered people. I have no idea what is the next thing that will get them going. Every time they are not satisfied with something they use violence. So letting them in might satisfy them for the short time, but in a decade they will demand some other unreasonable thing. No Israeli will take that risk.
Regarding radicalization. I gurantee you that what radicalizes Palestinians more than anything is the constant conessions given by Israel. The more Israel gives, the more hope Palestinians have that further violence will achieve further political goals. I am talking from a lot of experience. You can ask almost every Israeli, they will tell you the same thing.
Palestinians have always been killed without discretion, the israeli push in 2008 killed nearly 1000 civilians(of course its never their fault, human shields, the ultimate excuse that can be used whenever you kill anyone!). So this kind of thing is already put into practice, and of course as usual, doesn't work.
The concessions you speak of are like if a murderer who entered my home and killed my entire family and then told me that I'm allowed to sleep on the couch for the night. They aren't real. Palestinians see Israelis as very intolerant and easily angry people- and they have no idea when they'll decide to kill another 1000 of them. Keep letting them build settlements on your land and diverting all the water from your area to their settlements- and they'll eventually wipe you out the face of the earth. No Palestinian wants to take that risk, hence Hamas in power. Palestians have already gave Israel enough concessions in blood.
The point being there aren't any solutions with this kind of attitude. There are plenty of quotes to be dug up about how Israeli government officials don't think of palestinians as even being human. There has to be something else here besides painting one group as evil. It'll never work- and most importantly- its fake.
Palestinians are very intolerant and easily angered people.
Really? Even before 1947?
You're right that many people are too willing to use violence. But this cannot be changed through violence. "History has witnessed the failure of many endeavors to impose peace by war, cooperation by coercion, unanimity by slaughtering dissidents…. A lasting order cannot be established by bayonets." ~ Mises
I definitely prefer rockets and suicide bombings from the few Palestinians who manage to sneak into Israel...
There you go. So it is not that bad for you is it? Why then the siege mentality?
And as auctionguy said, they have the same rationale. What you prefer isn't any better than what they prefer. It is just that your side can use more force. And when a society uses force to solve conflicts, it is a race to the bottom.
Eugene:Opening the borders would work only in anarcho-capitalism, but Israel is a welfare state. Would you open your borders completely to Afghan people?
Absolutely!
I don't buy into the whole Rothbardian theme of free immigration is ok under certain conditions but not for welfare states. Its my own beliefs that open borders will make a society more Libertarian. It might be the case that welfare extends into the hands of the new benefit seekers but I think the positives of greater trade and commerce will boost all local economic activity. Looking at economics, I can see its a good thing for the economy whenever there is a diversity of skills and tastes to facilitate the demand for goods and services generated from such skills.
Double the population of Israel with 6 million hostile people, a good portion of whom are radical fundamentalists? No, I definitely prefer suicide bombings. They still hate Jews, so inviting 6 million enemies into your territory is just suicide
You see, that's a fairly collectivist mentality; 'they' are not anything and 'they' cannot hate anyone either. It is also my belief that most of the suicide bombings that happen in Israel occur due to the plethora of anal security checks at the border checks wherein security make the daily lives of the Arabs hell. I'd be pretty pissed off too, although that is no excuse for terrorism on their behalf. If the two races become more integrated it will smooth other relationships between the two people, since what are the differences after all, but ethnicity and religion?
evilsocialistfellow:free immigration is ok under certain conditions but not for welfare states.
Isn't the welfare state commiting a dangerous act when it opens the border?
Drew:Isn't the welfare state commiting a dangerous act when it opens the border?
How do you mean? That it risks attracting a host of welfare clients? Or that it risks increasing tensions between nationals and migrant populations?
evilsocialistfellow: That it risks attracting a host of welfare clients?
Yes, that's what will most likely happen. I think that's why Rothbard was againts it, even Friedman.
evilsocialistfellow:Or that it risks increasing tensions between nationals and migrant populations?
I doubt this is true, most people on welfare never reveal themselves, they usually work "under the table" so it's never in their best interest. This type of attitude rarely happens in Canada, from what I know. I think this will most likely happen in USA since I heard the Americans hate Mexicans, but that's just pop culture.
Drew:Yes, that's what will most likely happen. I think that's why Rothbard was againts it, even Friedman.
It is a risk but I believe that the positives of increased overall economic output will outweigh the negatives of welfare and over time, the society will become more Libertarian.
evilsocialistfellow:I doubt this is true, most people on welfare never reveal themselves, they usually work "under the table" so it's never in their best interest. This type of attitude rarely happens in Canada, from what I know. I think this will most likely happen in USA since I heard the Americans hate Mexicans, but that's just pop culture.
No, I know this but I was referring to the problem of racial tensions rather than specific hatred against welfare clients (although a lot of Britons automatically assume immigrants are on welfare - which is comparatively little to what a lot of native Brits receive anyway). In my opinion no culture can ever be Libertarian unless the people within the respective society can work to overcome racism. The effects of open borders should reduce the effect of racism over time (*hopefully*). But it is my belief that all migrants should have the right to protect themselves. One thing that does bother me is Islam and Sharia law which is highly pro-welfare state. I heard in a poll that something like 40% of muslims (can't remember if that is the correct statistic) would like to achieve Sharia law in the UK.
evilsocialistfellow:It is a risk but I believe that the positives of increased overall economic output will outweigh the negatives of welfare and over time, the society will become more Libertarian.
Interesting, on the other hand doesn't this mean that taxes will rise to support the huge number of migrants on welfare.
"positives of increased overall economic"
When?
"the society will become more Libertarian"
And how can a welfare state make that happen?
evilsocialistfellow:Libertarian unless the people within the respective society can work to overcome racism
Racist folks are pretty much harmless nowdays. The best thing to do is not to talk to them. I noticed that some of my liberal politically correct friends are closet racists. There's nothing, anyone, can do to stop people, no matter how much education.
We can stop violence, that's for sure, but we can't interfere with their thoughts.
evilsocialistfellow:I heard in a poll that something like 40% of muslims (can't remember if that is the correct statistic) would like to achieve Sharia law in the UK.
Yes, I heard about that. I always thought muslims go to their mosque and just mind their own business. The ones I know are very peacefull people.
I read somewhere(probably a propaganda website) that most of them are totalitarian and want to impose Sharia law over everyone. Not sure how much of that is true, after all it was a propaganda website. I know some of them are weird, but isn't it a small minority? And besides that's only 40%, this means the other 60% are "nice".
Are there Sharia courts in the UK?
I suppose it's ok if they impose it to themselves,